View Poll Results: Mars or The Moon which should be the first settlement?

Voters
77. You may not vote on this poll
  • Mars

    10 12.99%
  • The Moon

    67 87.01%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
  1. #81

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    The Moon of course. Much, much closer. Good place to dump our most toxic wastes.
    Why am I not surprised that this is the first thought that comes to your head?

  3. #83
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Why am I not surprised that this is the first thought that comes to your head?
    Why am I not surprised you are not surprised?

    You rather store toxic wastes here on the earth, which has abundant life, which it could pose a danger sometime? I am talking primarily about Nuclear waste. Which by the way, is the cleanest way to generate electricity to billions of people which can be safely done if done right.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    Why am I not surprised you are not surprised?

    You rather store toxic wastes here on the earth, which has abundant life, which it could pose a danger sometime? I am talking primarily about Nuclear waste. Which by the way, is the cleanest way to generate electricity to billions of people which can be safely done if done right.
    No, I'd rather we learn not to pollute the places we live in. Rather than just be like "Well, new planet (moon)...let's see how bad we can fuck this one up, too"

  5. #85
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    No, I'd rather we learn not to pollute the places we live in. Rather than just be like "Well, new planet (moon)...let's see how bad we can fuck this one up, too"
    How can you mess up a moon which is already dead and has a lot of radiation hitting it every day from not having a atmosphere, by storing our most deadly and toxic wastes on it?
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    How can you mess up a moon which is already dead and has a lot of radiation hitting it every day from not having a atmosphere, by storing our most deadly and toxic wastes on it?
    Imagine any of the missions to bring waste to the moon fails. The spacecraft exploded before getting to escape velocity and now we have a container of radioactive waste orbiting the planet until it burns up or crashes, scattering nuclear decay products in the atmosphere and at the crash site into the groundwater.

    Something like that just seems very not worth it for all the risk associated and the other things we can do to address energy. Hell, I'd prefer keeping nuclear waste terrestrial rather than hauling tons of it into space. Not to mention all the associated rocket fuel costs to get all that mass to the moon in the first place. You're better off keeping that sort of energy production close to where you'd get the raw materials for fuel anyways.

  7. #87
    I am Murloc!
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Baden-Wuerttemberg
    Posts
    5,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    How can you mess up a moon which is already dead and has a lot of radiation hitting it every day from not having a atmosphere, by storing our most deadly and toxic wastes on it?
    guess what: if you want to live on moon, you dont want any nuclear waste somewhere.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    How can you mess up a moon which is already dead and has a lot of radiation hitting it every day from not having a atmosphere, by storing our most deadly and toxic wastes on it?
    Because it makes no sense. Putting a pound of material into space is extremely expensive and if you are about to do that.....why the hell do you put it in the moon? Why don't you just send it to Andromeda and let it wander for millions of year? You have already spent the money to get it out of the planet's orbit.

  9. #89
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    19,099
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimiOne View Post
    Because it makes no sense. Putting a pound of material into space is extremely expensive and if you are about to do that.....why the hell do you put it in the moon? Why don't you just send it to Andromeda and let it wander for millions of year? You have already spent the money to get it out of the planet's orbit.
    lol good point. In that scenario you could just send the rocket into the sun and forget about it forever.
    -------
    A problem consists of a conflict between two ideas. Problems are soluble.
    Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to predetermine the future.

  10. #90
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Cinnamilk View Post
    Imagine any of the missions to bring waste to the moon fails. The spacecraft exploded before getting to escape velocity and now we have a container of radioactive waste orbiting the planet until it burns up or crashes, scattering nuclear decay products in the atmosphere and at the crash site into the groundwater.

    Something like that just seems very not worth it for all the risk associated and the other things we can do to address energy. Hell, I'd prefer keeping nuclear waste terrestrial rather than hauling tons of it into space. Not to mention all the associated rocket fuel costs to get all that mass to the moon in the first place. You're better off keeping that sort of energy production close to where you'd get the raw materials for fuel anyways.
    Good point. The costs and risks would certainly need to be taken into consideration.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by ranzino View Post
    guess what: if you want to live on moon, you dont want any nuclear waste somewhere.
    If you are living on the moon, guess what: you are already being exposed to a lot more radiation than you are on the earth.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PrimiOne View Post
    Because it makes no sense. Putting a pound of material into space is extremely expensive and if you are about to do that.....why the hell do you put it in the moon? Why don't you just send it to Andromeda and let it wander for millions of year? You have already spent the money to get it out of the planet's orbit.
    Very good point. That would be a great option.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean by "all things being equal" - moon is orders of magnitude easier than mars, although both are difficult, of course.

    But moon first - practice, of course, but also we should have had a base up there since the 1970's.

    - - - Updated - - -



    And we can "practice" and refine so many techniques while there. 3D printing from materials on planet. Growing crops in low gravity. All the things we need to have down before we send a colony to mars.
    The problem is there is more than just oxygen and temperature etc stopping things like that. The most we can do as it stands is transport food to these places because neither have a viable magnetosphere. Mars has 1 solid crust unlike Earth which is one of the reasons life as we know it developed on earth. We are soooooo far from being able to actually find a way to do that to Mars and the moon is actually far less of an option as it wasn't going to have one to begin with. Growing crops while taking the full brunt of the sun's rays is probably not going to happen or if it does there will be a consequence.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    Good point. The costs and risks would certainly need to be taken into consideration.

    - - - Updated - - -



    If you are living on the moon, guess what: you are already being exposed to a lot more radiation than you are on the earth.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Very good point. That would be a great option.
    Seriously people seem to think that it's an oxygen issue. The earth's molten core and plates are one of the biggest reasons life as we know it is on earth. It's not just atmosphere but also magnetosphere. The sun would be a huge problem on both of those places.

  12. #92
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    29,497
    Quote Originally Posted by ohwell View Post
    The problem is there is more than just oxygen and temperature etc stopping things like that. The most we can do as it stands is transport food to these places because neither have a viable magnetosphere. Mars has 1 solid crust unlike Earth which is one of the reasons life as we know it developed on earth. We are soooooo far from being able to actually find a way to do that to Mars and the moon is actually far less of an option as it wasn't going to have one to begin with. Growing crops while taking the full brunt of the sun's rays is probably not going to happen or if it does there will be a consequence.
    But none of those long-term issues would prevent us from being able to colonize them. We can grow crops behind shields. We can build habitats underground to block radiation (until such time as we can build sturdier/thicker habitats above ground).

    The issues you bring up are problems for terraforming, not colonization. All the issues you bring up are, imo, both valid and entirely unassailable with our current tech.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    But none of those long-term issues would prevent us from being able to colonize them. We can grow crops behind shields. We can build habitats underground to block radiation (until such time as we can build sturdier/thicker habitats above ground).

    The issues you bring up are problems for terraforming, not colonization. All the issues you bring up are, imo, both valid and entirely unassailable with our current tech.
    I mean how far underground and how strong and what type of shields. The cost/benefit might not really add up. I've been REALLY disillusioned by the astronomy classes I've taken because honestly our solar system isn't really that viable outside of earth. Realistically speaking it's far better to fix this planet and control the human population. This girl at work was very upset when I said that Covid is something that needed to happen and it killing old people while sad is somewhat necessary. Human population is the route of all the planet's problems and we need to really take a page from China as far as limiting birth rates to 1-2 per couple. Viruses and natural disasters are going to keep happening in the meantime and spreading to Mars or the moon isn't going to rectify that much less there is no viable way to even reach the potentially habitable planets we've found. It would take something like the ship in Pandorum or a generational ship. So between that and the moon and Mars being not really a viable option, fix earth should be a priority.

    Then there's the billion year countdown to die out or leave before the sun engulfs the earth. Moving to Mars might be a better option then.

  14. #94
    While we're speculating pn implausible/unlikely points...might as well take a page from 2010 A Space Odyssey and find a way to ignite the planet Jupiter into a full blown Sun.

  15. #95
    WC3 Megathreader Lilithvia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    No matter the topic, someone will find a way to redirect it to complain about their current aggro.
    Posts
    3,430
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    I said the ISS changes orbit to avoid debris, if it didn't seem that way then it was a typo.

    One your #3 I'm not sure what you mean by your reply. Never said NASA has no merit, I believe otherwise. It's very valuable. What I said is that there's no need for there to be a permanent human presence on the Moon. Any micro gravity experiment would be better on a station or observed remotely. Collection sample is done better with robotics.

    You can't eliminate the human touch altogether, which is where an orbital station would come into play. You could ferry samples to the station are humans to a lunar lab as needed without logistic and financial hurdles of trying to establish a permanently manned lab on the Moon. Coming and going to the Moon is cheap if you're doing it from, say, the Lunar Gateway.

    Even if you came up with a way to efficiently harvest H3 from the Moon tonight, such a facility would be automated with very minimal if any direct human involvement.
    microgravity can't replicate low gravity in much the same way earth gravity can't replicate micro gravity or low gravity. There's tremendous benefit in establishing an outpost, even if just for manufacturing, metalforging, and mining of lighter materials that are rare on earth (such as H3, which is amazing in the medical industry, and is a good fuel for fusion power planets... when we actually figure out how to keep them sustained for long periods of time without using more power than they generate to keep them going)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PrimiOne View Post
    Because it makes no sense. Putting a pound of material into space is extremely expensive and if you are about to do that.....why the hell do you put it in the moon? Why don't you just send it to Andromeda and let it wander for millions of year? You have already spent the money to get it out of the planet's orbit.
    "lets build a rocket so big we need to mine out a solar system of all the metal it has just to send a pound of radioactive material to a nearby galaxy"

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by ranzino View Post
    guess what: if you want to live on moon, you dont want any nuclear waste somewhere.
    think you forgot about solar and cosmic radiation bud. Also, coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste, ironically enough
    Last edited by Lilithvia; 2020-10-03 at 11:42 PM.

  16. #96
    This polo required one extra variant - colonization of both planets is not possible. You just need to imagine how many resources are needed to implement this idea which has no benefit at all. As for me, it is better to take care of the Earth and solve the problems that can destroy it.

  17. #97
    Less server lag on the Moon than Mars

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eh...apb-320-80.jpg
    The Moon or Mars which should be the first settlement all things being equal?

    Personally I’d go with the moon. Easier to get to so easier to send supplies until they become sustainable.
    tbh neither.

    imo at current stage of humankind developement we shouldnt waste even a single cent on planetary travel / settlements in space

    we have way to much to do to improve humankind living conditions on earth .

    untill we get technology allowing use real terraforming of unhabitable planets like mars we shouldnt waste time , resources and money on it.

  19. #99
    the moon: we need a spaceship production facility and an interstellar port there before going to other planets
    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post
    Obviously this issue doesn't affect me however unlike some raiders I don't see the point in taking satisfaction in this injustice, it's wrong, just because it doesn't hurt me doesn't stop it being wrong, the player base should stand together when Blizzard do stupid shit like this not laugh at the ones being victimised.

  20. #100
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    19,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Phuongvi View Post
    Less server lag on the Moon than Mars
    Lag caused by distance would only matter for real-time updates. Eventually they would create a system where there are copies of all mainstream servers on both planets. So for example if the Moon or Mars had permanent settlements there would be local servers for Wikipedia and World of Warcraft and they might only synchronize them with updates once per week.

    I suppose you could technically play an MMORPG from the moon without a local server but since everything takes an extra second it would end up being pretty clunky.
    Last edited by PC2; 2020-11-17 at 06:19 PM.
    -------
    A problem consists of a conflict between two ideas. Problems are soluble.
    Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to predetermine the future.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •